Editing Openai/696b7614-10bc-8006-b70d-5688055cda78 (section)

=== Assistant: !https://upload\.wikimedia\.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Karl\Popper\.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4… ===
!https://upload\.wikimedia\.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Karl\_Popper\.jpg<ref>{{cite web|title=https://upload\.wikimedia\.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Karl\_Popper\.jpg|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Karl_Popper.jpg|publisher=upload.wikimedia.org|access-date=2026-01-20}}</ref>
!https://m\.media\-amazon\.com/images/I/61NTMbIdqAL\.\_AC\_UF1000%2C1000\_QL80\_\.jpg<ref>{{cite web|title=https://m\.media\-amazon\.com/images/I/61NTMbIdqAL\.\_AC\_UF1000%2C1000\_QL80\_\.jpg|url=https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61NTMbIdqAL._AC_UF1000%2C1000_QL80_.jpg|publisher=m.media-amazon.com|access-date=2026-01-20}}</ref>
!https://tasteminty\.com/file/image/750/00003598\.jpg<ref>{{cite web|title=https://tasteminty\.com/file/image/750/00003598\.jpg|url=https://images.openai.com/thumbnails/url/Mr6MmXicu5mZUVJSUGylr5-al1xUWVCSmqJbkpRnoJdeXJJYkpmsl5yfq5-Zm5ieWmxfaAuUsXL0S7F0Tw6scnYv9cmLMA0vMXFPy_T1T_TNT0x3TsmqioxPNSypNPcxc3J313WNyC0O9q6wSElXKwYAY3UmPw|publisher=images.openai.com|access-date=2026-01-20}}</ref>
4
Karl Popper’s view on tolerance is best known through what he called the “paradox of tolerance”, introduced in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). It’s a short passage, but conceptually dense—and often misunderstood.

==== Popper’s claim, in its simplest form, is this: ====

: 

Why? Because if a society tolerates intolerant movements without limit, those movements may use that freedom to destroy the tolerant society itself.

This is not a moral paradox but a political and institutional one.

==== Popper is not talking about: ====
* holding unpopular opinions
* being conservative, radical, or offensive
* religious belief as such

He is talking about movements that:
* Reject rational discussion
* Refuse reciprocity
* Advocate silencing, coercing, or eliminating others
* Use freedom instrumentally, only until they can abolish it

His historical reference point is clear: fascism and totalitarian ideologies, which rose by exploiting democratic freedoms.

==== Popper explicitly says: ====

: 

Only when:
* argument is rejected,
* discussion is replaced by violence, intimidation, or propaganda that forbids reply,

does Popper justify withdrawing tolerance, even using legal force if necessary.

So Popper is not advocating censorship as a first move.

This matters a lot.

==== For Popper: ====
* Tolerance is not absolute
* It is conditional and reciprocal

You are tolerated because you tolerate others and accept shared rules of peaceful coexistence.

Once a group denies that framework, Popper argues it has exited the contract.

This makes tolerance:
* institutional
* pragmatic
* defensive

—not sentimental.

==== Popper was: ====
* an Austrian Jew
* a witness to the collapse of the Weimar Republic
* an exile from Nazism

He saw firsthand how:
* extremists used free speech to destroy free speech
* democracy committed “procedural suicide”

So his concern is structural, not emotional.

==== |     |     | ====
| --- | --- |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |

Popper’s target is dogmatism armed with power, not error or disagreement.

==== Popper’s paradox becomes especially relevant when: ====
* propaganda is automated
* bad-faith actors exploit openness
* “free speech” is used selectively, as a weapon

His warning is not:

: 

but rather:

: 

==== - Tolerance exists to protect open inquiry ====
* Intolerance that destroys inquiry cannot claim its protection
* Defending openness may require limits, but only as a last resort

Popper is trying to save liberalism from naivety, not from generosity.

If you’d like, next we can:
* contrast Popper with John Stuart Mill
* explore how his view differs from contemporary free-speech absolutism
* or examine how easily the paradox itself can be abused (which is a real danger)